Jane Kennedy: Yes, we have said for many years that we believe the best route out of poverty to be through work. The support that we have in place is designed to assist people not only to find jobs through our active labour market policies, which the hon. Gentleman will have noted have had considerable success, but to ensure that work pays and provides the benefits that one would expect once people are in work.

Alistair Darling: As I said in my letter yesterday, the first area in which we can take action is in relation to 60 to 64-year-olds. On the others, if she looks at the letter, she will see that I said that our focus is on allowing that the average losses from the abolition of the 10p band can be offset. I want to do that for this year. Because the groups concerned are diverse, and because the effect of any change to the tax system can be quite complex, it will take time—this is why it will not be until the pre-Budget report that I can come back to it—to work out in which way we can help groups. I suspect that there may be different ways.
	I have made my intention very clear. It is all very well for the Conservatives to raise these matters, but they would have more credibility if they had a single proposal that might help.

Simon Hughes: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes made by the hon. Lady—and you, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week—to Gwyneth Dunwoody? She was a formidable, doughty and relentless parliamentarian, and by being so gained huge respect across the House and outside it. She also broke two great records. She was the woman who served for the longest continuous period in Parliament, a record previously held by Barbara Castle, and the woman who served for the longest period overall, a record previously held by Irene Ward. She was a phenomenal parliamentary contributor, and we send our condolences through the Deputy Leader of the House to her family and friends and her constituents in Crewe and Nantwich.
	Through the Deputy Leader of the House, I should like to thank the Leader of the House for her letter explaining why she is not here today. She is at the funeral of Gloria Taylor, Damilola Taylor's mother. We send our love and sympathy to the Taylor family, who have suffered two terrible blows in far too short a time.
	May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House three questions about business, all of which are about the economy and matters about which we heard the Chancellor and colleagues speaking earlier? First, will the hon. Lady assure me that, on Monday and Tuesday, when we debate the Finance Bill, there will be time to debate adequately the working tax credit? In particular, if the Government are determined to use the credit as the method of giving back to the poor, may we debate how we can change a situation in which under a quarter of those eligible as working couples with no children obtain working tax credit, and under a third of those who earn less than £10,000 obtain it?
	There is also the fact that 2 million people get working tax credit repayments that they should not get, and 1 million do not get the ones that they should. It is no good having a reliance on this system if it works so badly for so many people. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can assure us that on Monday or Tuesday there will be time to debate that issue instead of just saying that that is the mechanism for dealing with the Government's recent difficulties.
	On Wednesday, we have the debate that the Deputy Leader of the House announced on the remaining stages of the Energy Bill. She has heard before the exchanges about giving enough time for Opposition new clauses and amendments. May I ask specifically that we have time to debate why someone who pays their energy bills by direct debate may have fuel bills on average £400 lower than people who have prepayment meters? People who pay by prepayment meter are the poorest and those who pay by direct debit have the most stable incomes, bank accounts and the rest. If we are going to deal with the poor and energy bills we need to be able to help those people, who are clobbered most and can afford least.
	One of the effects of the credit crunch appears now to be impacting on housing associations, which have to borrow in the private sector for the house building that they contribute to social housing. The Government have an ambitious target of 3 million extra homes by 2020, and an affordable housing target of approaching 100,000 homes a year by 2010-11. May we soon have a debate about achieving the objective of building the affordable homes that we need in London and across Britain? At the moment, the banks are less willing to lend, the housing associations therefore have less money to spend, and the risk is that the ambitious targets turn to nothing and people have additional housing problems in addition to all the other ones that we know about.

Gregory Barker: The Minister has to recognise that the comments from the chief executive of Sainsbury's stand as a matter of record. He has accused the Government of jumping on bandwagons and forgetting the issues that need to be addressed. Those are not my words but those of the chief executive of Sainsbury's.
	Why has the Chancellor decided to meddle, hanging the threat of compulsory taxation over the consumer and greatly angering retailers—as the Minister discovered in person when she met Justin King on "Newsnight" last week?
	Why are the Government being accused by the retail sector of chasing headlines and reneging on their agreements? Is it because the Chancellor squeezed a splash of greenwash into his flawed Budget? If it was, then it was pretty weak greenwash. His plan has been attacked by most non-governmental organisations, which have rejected a ban on plastic bags. The Green Alliance, a leading environmental NGO, pointed out that a ban would be likely not to reduce emissions and might in fact help to increase them. Or was the aim to satisfy the popular press? Perhaps.
	I wholeheartedly agree that the scourge of bags that litter our streets and countryside and pollute our seas must be tackled, but the reduction of packaging and supermarket waste will be most effectively achieved hand in hand with retailers— through designing out waste and educating the consumer to recycle and dispose of their rubbish responsibly—not through gesture politics and fumbled greenwash.
	Tackling our waste stream is an essential part of tackling climate change. Waste threatens our wildlife and biodiversity and an ambitious waste policy is essential for a sustainable future, but political gestures about plastic bags are a poor substitute for an ambitious and thought-through whole-life waste strategy. For that, we will have to wait for a change of Government.

Liam Byrne: I think that I have just answered that question. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the degree of consensus that the net balance is the important number. I know that he will disagree with that and I look forward to his remarks in which I hope he will answer a simple question: if there is a magic number of people who should come into the country this year, what is it? The political debate is suffering from the fact that there is an allusion to a magical number, but to date it has been secret.

Diane Abbott: No, that is what the Department is saying. Those restaurateurs are insisting that to have the delicious south Asian food to which the British people have become accustomed over the years, they must recruit cooks, of which there is a desperate shortage, from that region.

Damian Green: We can all reach for our favourite ports, but I am quite happy to be on the same side as Professor Richard Layard, Adair Turner, Lord Moonie and many others, some of whom are right hon. and hon. colleagues of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz).
	I shall make my position and that of the Conservative party clear to the right hon. Gentleman: immigration has benefited and does benefit this country, both economically and culturally. To ensure that we capture the benefits of immigration for those who are already here and for those who wish to come here, we need to ensure that the immigration system is under proper control and that immigration is at a level at which the population and our public services can be comfortable. It is wrong that the Government have failed to do that for the past 10 years.

Damian Green: I have taken up enough time. I am sure that the hon. Lady will have a chance to make other points later in the debate.
	In some ways, the points-based system is a step forward, but there are individual issues and it is nothing like enough to meet the scale of the problems. It will not be a particularly radical change. There will be many individual problems, but more to the point, the correct feeling in the country that there is a lack of control will continue. That is why we need an annual limit and a genuinely radical change in our immigration system.
	Over the past 40 or 50 years we have seen that immigration is a big political issue only when it is felt to be out of control. It is not one of the issues, such as the economy or the health service, that is for ever at the top of people's political anxieties, but it is at present, because it has been out of control for so long. It is possible to run an immigration system that is firm and fair, which allows into Britain those who will benefit our economy, without allowing our public services to be put under intolerable pressure by unplanned numbers of new arrivals, and which lets in the right people and the right number of people. That is what a Conservative immigration policy will look like.
	In the mean time the British people will have to put up with the current failing Labour policies. The points-based system is a mild improvement on what came before and can be used as a base for the more sensible policies that we would introduce. However, it is not a radical improvement. Indeed, for some groups it is already making life worse. Most importantly of all, it will not transform the public's correct impression that immigration policy has been and remains one of the great failures of the Government.

Keith Vaz: It always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). He spoke for 40 minutes but did not tell us precisely what the policy of the Conservative party would be in respect of immigration. On the central point of the Conservative party's policy—the cap—he refuses to spell out in the House or outside exactly what numbers he is talking about. If the Conservative party wishes to play the numbers game, it should be specific about what those numbers would be. It is sad that he was not able to be specific.
	We learned something new today: the Minister carefully studies the speeches of the hon. Member for Ashford, and the hon. Gentleman carefully studies the Minister's speeches. Between them they have spoken for an hour and a half. Perhaps they should send each other e-mails to reduce the length of their speeches in the House. However, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on so many occasions. I do not wish to pick on him because he was so generous, as was the hon. Gentleman. This is a short debate, so I shall not give way as much as they did if anyone seeks to intervene on me.
	The Minister began, rightly, in a measured way by talking about the benefits of migration. Although the hon. Member for Ashford has a particular attachment to the House of Lords report, everyone in the House recognises that the United Kingdom is a great country because of the arrival of so many immigrants throughout its history, including the Asian community over the past 30 to 40 years and the Irish community over a longer period than that. As we heard from the Work Foundation report, which was published today, the arrival of high levels of immigration has benefited us and the economy, and that has been good for the country as a whole.
	I shall deal with the continuing problem that we seem to have in the immigration debate and that has now gripped the tabloid media. I am thinking of the arrival of the central and eastern Europeans in the United Kingdom. That happened under our treaty obligations, into which we entered in good faith. We originally signed up to those obligations when we accepted the principle of freedom of movement, which happened when the right hon. Member for St. Albans was in the Cabinet. The Maastricht treaty and subsequent treaties all enabled this country to honour those commitments.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, I have not yet said that because he pre-empted me, not because I was not going to. I am very glad that he took the words out of my mouth, as that will shorten my speech.
	I want to quote the remarks of Kamal Nath, the Indian Trade Minister. He said:
	"'We are not asking for more permanent immigration...We are talking about people coming in for a month or so to integrate software systems.' An Indian software company that could not send executives or technical experts into the UK for short periods would be unable to service...warranties or sell new systems that would require on-the-spot maintenance in the future."
	As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has said, that would damage industry not only industry in that country but in this country. The Association of Technology Staffing Companies refers to the practice as "onshore offshoring". It is a vital service to UK industry and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
	Finally, I want to talk about the visa bond that has been proposed many times in the past and, I am pleased to say, has always been rejected. I hope that it will be rejected again. I hope that fervently on points of principle as well as pragmatism.
	I find the idea that a visa bond should be available to somebody when they are seeking entry clearance for this country obnoxious. An entry clearance officer, in considering whether to grant a visa for entry into this country, must be satisfied that on the balance of probability the applicant will comply with the visa conditions—that is, that they will return to their country of origin within six months, or within whatever period for which the visa is granted.
	If we allowed a visa bond system, when our entry clearance officer doubted whether someone would comply with our visa conditions, that person could come to this country if they were rich and able to pay £5,000 or £10,000—whatever the figure might be—but that they could not if they were poor. That sticks in my craw and I hope that it sticks in the Minister's. I do not recognise it as anything like a Labour policy. If an entry clearance officer has genuine doubts that somebody will comply with our rules and regulations, a visa should be denied. When those doubts exist, people should not be able to enter the country if they are rich but not if they are poor.
	If entry clearance officers were considering a situation in which they could grant admission, and thought, "I am not sure in this case. Perhaps I will offer to allow the person in if they put up a bond," that might start out as an exception, but I am confident that it would soon erode the decision-making ability and discretion of the officer. It would become not an exception but a norm. It is much easier to guard one's back as an entry clearance officer by imposing a bond. The Minister must resist that erosion of principle.
	Many other Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall draw my remarks to a premature close.

James Clappison: I think that the hon. Gentleman would find, if he did some research, that certainly the Huguenots came to this country, fleeing persecution, and made a distinctive contribution, but it was not on the scale of the migration that we have seen in recent times. None of the previous migrations—whether Jewish, Huguenot or any other group—caused migration at the level of the past 10 years. I believe that the Government have a commitment to migration. They believe that migration is good; they are ideologically committed to high migration; they believe that there is an economic case for it. That case has been demolished, but the Government continue with migration nevertheless. That has been reflected in the migration that they brought about as soon as they took office, with the increase in the number of work permits that were issued to workers form outside the European Union. Since then, they have continued with high migration, sometimes through policy errors, as in the case of the accession eight countries, but more through the issuing of work permits and other means.
	The interesting point about work permits—I would appreciate the Minister's answer on this—is that, even when it became apparent that Ministers had got their predictions completely wrong in 2004 and that far more people were coming from the accession eight countries than the Government had predicted, they still continued to issue work permits to workers from outside the European Union at an increasing rate.

Angela Smith: I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of Basildon golf course. As Members may know, the Friends of Basildon Golf Course has secured the right to a judicial review of the council's decision to grant planning permission. I appreciate that that places a constraint on what I can say, and will also constrain the Minister's reply. I assure the House that I will not trespass on the areas covered by the judicial review, and that all the information that I shall give is already in the public domain.
	I thank the Friends of Basildon Golf Course for the tenacity it has shown in its campaign, and for the forensic and professional way in which it has conducted itself—particularly Mick and Janet Toomer and John Toplis, although I do not mean to overlook the contributions of many others. I am also indebted to the well-known local naturalist Rod Cole for information that he has supplied. The nearest that I have got to playing golf is crazy golf on holiday, and friends who have seen me putt on a crazy golf site might well be amused by my choice of debate this evening; but I intend to illustrate why the development or, more accurately, the destruction of Basildon Golf course as we know it has incensed more people than just those who play golf.
	Basildon golf course has been a municipal course since 1967, and before that had been cultivated land for hundreds of years. When Basildon development corporation created Basildon new town, it respected this valuable asset and planned its long-term protection by creating a golf course on the site, and placing covenants on the land so that it could only be used as a golf course or for farming or recreational purposes.
	Much of the 164-acre site is located within a mile of Basildon town centre. It really is a green lung. It is popular with golfers, walkers and dog walkers, as well as those who just enjoy it and value its biodiversity. It would be possible to make an entire speech about that aspect alone, but I want to single out a few valuable nuggets of helpful information.
	This is one of the few places in the new town where birds of prey are regularly seen. It is widely used by wild birds, including some rarities. We see badgers, weasels, foxes and grey squirrels, and even adders and lizards are known to inhabit the site. There are three scarce species of bumble bee—which is remarkable in south Essex—two of which are UK biodiversity action plan species, and no fewer than 28 species of butterfly are known to be on the site or immediately adjacent to it. However, even for those who do not share this enthusiasm for nature, it has to be said that it is a beautiful site and it has retained its beauty as the town has developed.
	Basildon district council decided that the course should be leased for 99 years to a new company that is part of the Jack Barker golf group. There was real public concern about that, but the council is certainly within its rights to do that if it believes that it would be in the interests of Basildon residents. That decision on its own, although not universally welcomed, is not the reason why there has been such a huge public outcry. Personally, I would have preferred to have seen greater efforts made to keep this facility public and in the control of the council, and accountable to residents.
	The origins of the decision to lease the course appear to be financial, as income from the course was not meeting council targets. Following a competitive bidding process, the Jack Barker golf group was awarded the lease, and I am told that at no stage in the process did the company mention the importation of landfill, let alone in the quantities that have since been agreed.
	In September 2007, planning permission was given for 120,000 cu m of landfill to—it was claimed—"improve" the site. I have to admit that I am not an expert on golf courses, and I have no doubt that it is perfectly possible that the course could benefit from improvements. I would have no objection to some landfill being used for those improvements and for re-profiling, but not 120,000 cu m. Depending on the size of the lorries carrying the waste, there would be between 8,000 and 12,000 lorry loads of waste over a six-month period. I should add that this is only phase one of the development, and that the total plans are for 321,000 cu m of waste.
	Aside from the huge amounts of traffic thundering through Basildon streets, we must wonder what the implications of this will be. I have tried to visualise what 120,000 cu m of waste actually looks like. If we think about a wall being built that is 1 m high and 1 m wide, we could rebuild Hadrian's wall, or there could be a wall from Basildon to Westminster and back again with some left over. That is the scale of the dumping there will be on this site.
	Local residents and the wider community are understandably concerned about the impact of the proposed development on local traffic congestion, particularly outside Basildon university hospital, which treats 77,000 people a year and has one of the busiest accident and emergency units in the country. They are also concerned about the noise, dust and finer particulates that will be generated. Fine particulates are potentially carcinogenic and can be hazardous to those with respiratory problems. Older residents also fear a recurrence of the flooding that occurred in the 1960s, when homes were flooded by water running off the golf course after a storm. These fears may be unfounded, but what concerns residents is that there does not appear to have been a full assessment of all the possible implications, so residents have been unable to obtain the reassurances they need. For a number of homes overlooking the golf course, the view of trees and open space will be lost forever. Let us imagine what it will be like to see, instead of those trees and that green space, a 24 ft high wall of inert waste. It is no wonder people that are distressed. Basildon university hospital is located on a very busy roundabout close to the golf course, alongside St. Luke's hospice and Thurrock and Basildon college.
	Despite council claims that it, local schools and the primary care trust were consulted over the plans, it appears that that was not the case. Therefore, given all these concerns raised by residents, how did this development and waste dumping get planning permission? It should be noted that there was not a unanimous decision. The only two opposition committee members—Labour councillors Lynda Gordon and Danny Nandandwar—were unconvinced by the arguments and felt that not all their concerns had been addressed. They voted against planning permission. One councillor, Frank Tomlin, after voting in favour of the plans had a letter published in the local paper, the  Echo. Somewhat surprisingly, he stated:
	"Your report incorrectly describes me as a supporter of the scheme".
	He went on to explain that he had
	"no great enthusiasm for the proposed development"
	and also said:
	"It is highly likely that there will be unsightly heaps of material during the construction process. It is highly likely Jack Barker will make money from the development. If we could and did refuse planning permission because an applicant would gain financially, nothing would ever be built. The law does not allow us that option".
	Does he really believe that those opposing planning permission do so only because there will be a mess during construction and the company will make money? In fairness, I think that if councillors had seen some of the information that I have now seen, there would have been more questions asked and greater examination of the detail, and permission might well have been refused.
	I have made it clear that I am unable to discuss some issues today because of the judicial review. However, I can tell the House that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is investigating whether an adequate assessment of the impact on those with disabilities has been carried out and that the local primary care trust is considering undertaking a full assessment of the health implications, particularly those arising from dust and finer particulates.
	A key part of the planning process is consultation. The result of the consultation with Natural England was reported to the committee thus:
	'"No objections in terms of legally protected species, subject to mitigation measures, but recommends appropriate measures be put in place to protect populations of glowworms and their grassland habitat".
	However, Friends of Basildon Golf Course has obtained a full copy of Natural England's letter to Basildon council dated 17 April 2007. Its first paragraph states:
	"The application site lies close to Basildon Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Based on the information provided, Natural England has no objection to the proposed development on the basis of impacts on Basildon Meadows SSSI, subject to the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application. The reason for this view is that we consider that this proposal in isolation will not have a significant effect on the interest features of Basildon Meadows SSSI. However, we are aware that this application is linked to the developer's aspiration to develop a much larger area of the golf course. The impact of this larger scale of development, including the proposals within the current application, would be likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon Basildon Meadows SSSI. These impacts would include significant hydrological change as a result of landscaping and air pollution impacts caused by increased road traffic, therefore, based on the currently available information, Natural England would object to such proposals".
	I accept that it is legitimate for councillors not to have information on a subsequent development that is not before them at the time; every application has to be assessed on its own merits. However, Natural England's submission refers to:
	"The impact of this larger scale of development, including the proposals within the current application".
	Furthermore, on page 9 of the planning application it is stated:
	"The application represents the first stage of proposals for the Golf Course and a subsequent application will follow for the remainder of the site".
	I therefore query whether it would have been appropriate for this information to be formally reported to the members of the development control committee.
	Another consultee was Sport England, and the result of that consultation was reported to the committee thus:
	"Whilst not a statutory consultation, support for the principle of the planning application."
	In subsequent correspondence, Friends of Basildon Golf Course learned that Sport England was supporting only the principle of a new clubhouse and the principle of a new driving range forming part of the facilities, and no more. It was not endorsing the detailed design, the precise location, the importation of landfill, the cutting down of trees or any other aspect of the environmental impact. Importantly, it was also not endorsing changes to the design of the course. Again, it would have been helpful if councillors had been given that information.
	Shortly after the initial agreement to lease Basildon golf course to Jack Barker Golf Ltd for 99 years, the Conservative administration on Basildon council agreed changes to the local plan and the removal of what were considered to be restrictive guidelines. The rules calling on councillors to resist the building of large-scale clubhouses and to scrutinise closely the installation of driving ranges in the district have been jettisoned in the latest local plan. The council's cabinet member for regeneration, Stephen Horgan, freely admitted that councillors had had Basildon golf course in mind when deciding to scrap the guidelines. He said:
	"It would be a bit silly to give the contract to a company who want to redevelop the golf course and then produce a plan that would restrict what they could do there."
	One of the changes deletes the following commitment in the plan:
	"Proposals for golf driving ranges will be closely scrutinised to ensure that they have a minimal effect on the visual and residential amenities of the area ".
	That goes back to the 24 ft-high wall that I mentioned. Although changes to the plan were drafted, they were not ratified by the time the planning application was considered by the committee. Councillors who were making the planning decision were not told about the local plan or the issues it raised about how the proposals should be assessed.
	I am also quite clear about the fact that councillors and the public were unaware of the extent of the dumping and the impact it would have. That is not surprising, given that some proposals were never put online as the files were said to be too big. In addition, the plans showing the contours of the height of the driving range—the range will be directly adjacent to a residential area—were not submitted to the council until 15 May. The closing date for consultation responses from the public and those affected by this proposal was 18 April. That is almost a full month before things were submitted to the council. So those people whose homes look out on to trees and a green area—they will now be faced by a 24 ft bank that holds a driving range with associated lights and so on—were not given any opportunity to object to the proposed height of the driving range.
	A further issue of some confusion at the council—although I do not think it was the council's fault—was whether the waste being dumped fell under the terms of a paragraph 19 exemption or whether a waste management licence would be needed. It was finally decided that a no licence was required because the waste would not be stored but would be dumped where it would be used, so no landfill tax applied.
	I disagree with my local council from time to time, although at all times I try to be co-operative and helpful and to work in the interests of local residents. Even in this case, I wrote to the leader of the council, and met him, to point out a number of my concerns. I asked him to delay progress so that the issues could be further examined and fully investigated. I assured him that he would face no criticism from me—in fact, I told him that I would praise him for being willing to consider some serious issues. He refused.
	I have concentrated on Basildon, but it is not the only place where such dumping goes on. My hon. Friend the Minister made a welcome commitment in response to a question from the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) when she announced that the Environment Agency will look into the dumping of waste and will consult on the subject.
	I appreciate that because of the time scales involved, and because of the opportunity for new legislation, it might take some time before any new policy comes into effect. Nevertheless, action is needed and I urge that there be no unnecessary delays. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that such a consultation involves not only consultation with members of the public and others who have been asked to submit their views? It should be a proactive examination of all the issues involved. Will she ask the Environment Agency to visit those areas that have already seen such works, such as Risebridge in Romford, and Nottingham, to get a fuller picture of what such dumping really means?
	I realise that the hon. Friend the Minister cannot answer for Local Government Ministers on the issues I have raised regarding the decision-making processes, but will she pass on my comments to the appropriate Minister, so that we can see whether the current guidelines give sufficient clarity and advice?
	I appreciate that although my hon. Friend the Minister is responsible for many things, I cannot hold her responsible for the decisions of Basildon council. However, given that such dumping on such a level is becoming more widespread, I would be grateful if she was able to answer the following questions—it will be perfectly satisfactory if she writes to me. How many waste licences have been issued since 2005? Is it possible to identify how many and which were for golf courses? How many involved paragraph 19 exemptions? What are the monitoring arrangements for ensuring that the licences and exemptions are adhered to? It appears that some local authorities merely give the DEFRA hotline number. Surely the local authority has some responsibility, too. How many licences or paragraph 19 exemptions have been withdrawn either temporarily or permanently? If a developer is granted a licence or an exemption for one purpose, can they change the reason once it has been issued?
	My next point might be an issue for the Treasury, but I am sure that the Chancellor will welcome the opportunity to close any loopholes. Has any estimate been made of the amount of landfill tax receipts that would be generated if just a quarter of the waste exempted from the tax was not exempt?
	Basildon council's intransigence on the issue means that the only option for local residents has been to raise their own money to fight the case through the courts. The fear is that unless the issues are widely publicised, the same thing will happen again and again. The Friends of Basildon Golf Course now has a network across the country and can offer advice and support.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter today. I will continue to work with and support my constituents in opposing these appalling, damaging plans. Basildon council's decision is utterly incredible and incomprehensible. It is just plain wrong. I regret that poor decision making has been allowed to go this far, causing distress and expense to the residents and council tax payers of Basildon.